NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

crucamim

dvpower wrote: »

The figures show a discrimonation against non catholics if anything.

What figures? If 86% of the population is Catholic, why are only 49% of the secondary schools owned by the RC Church?

crucamim

dvpower wrote: »

... the ones that we (all) pay for? I presume you don't want the state to leave you alone with the teachers salaries, the buildings' maintenance, the insurance costs, the admin costs...?

Of course not. Catholic schools should receive payments from the government for providing a service - educating the children of Catholics - many of whom are taxpayers. And likewise Protestant schools.

crucamim

Pygmalion wrote: »

When children in Catholic schools are abused it is the fault of the state for putting them there.

Does the State put children into Catholic schools? If it does, it most certainly is liable if anything nasty happens to them.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

please tell me why only 49% of secondary schools are owned by the RC Church.

The church wasn't interested in older kids?

Delirium

Right I'm fed up of this "the church bought and pays for schools" muck. I'm going to attempt to break down money from state vs. church money donated.

Two examples for this, one a school which was built around 1986, which is prior to government changing the rules for funding in 1999.

The second shall be a school opened in 2000.

Both the site and building costs will be estimated by myself as I can't find any information online. The running costs for each year shall be the same every year, just to keep it simple for myself.

If crucamim wishes to correct any figures, feel free to post up information to correct my assumptions about the maths.

The school built in 2000 figures are based on info I found on citizensinformation.ie as to how things are funded for new schools.


So, to the first school opened in 1986:

Lets assume the site was €500,000 and all funded by the church.
The building for simplicity was also funded by both state and church, split down the middle. So, say €100,000 for each.

Next we have teachers wages which I'll put at €30,000. This is entirely funded by the state. And we have 8 teachers, so €240,000 in total.

The patron of the school then receives €200 per student. So I'll use class sizes of 25 per class, with 8 classes, this gives a total of €40,000.

So to recap we have a once of cost of €700,000 to get the school up and running, and then an annual cost of €280,000.

The school has been running for 25 years, so lets see how state vs. church contributions compare:

Church contributes a once off cost of €600,000.

The state contributes a once off cost of €100,000.

The state then pays €280,000 for 25 years, which gives us, €7,000,000.

So, to sum up for school A, church paid €600,000 and the state paid €7.1 million.

This somehow makes it a Catholic school?

Now to the school built in 2000 which has more demands on the state to fund building the school.


Lets assume the site was €500,000 and all funded by the church.

The building is funded by both state and church. It cost €200,000 to build and the church is limited to 5% contribution towards the cost, so the church pays €10,000 and the state pays the remaining €190,000.

Next we have teachers wages which I'll put at €30,000. This is entirely funded by the state. And we have 8 teachers, so €240,000 in total.

The patron of the school then receives €200 per student. So I'll use class sizes of 25 per class, with 8 classes, this gives a total of €40,000.

So to recap we have a once of cost of €700,000 to get the school up and running, and then an annual cost of €280,000.


Church contributes a once off cost of €510,000.

The state contributes a once off cost of €190,000.

The state then pays €280,000 for 11 years, which gives us, €3,080,000.

So, to sum up for school B, church paid €510,000 and the state paid €3.18 million.


So how do we have the schools being referred to as catholic schools when in both examples the state bears the burden of the majority of the costs.

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

The church wasn't interested in older kids?

It actually was, when the state first started to propose free second level public schools, the church actually opposed the move. wonder why?:rolleyes:

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

I think he is trying to steal schools from Catholics and compel defenceless Catholic children to share clasrooms with anti-Catholic children and to submit to the authority of anti-Catholic teachers.

He's trying to get the institutions to pay towards the compensation to their victims - a bill that is currently being almost totally picked up by the state.
If they can come up with their share of the €1.36bn without handing over properties, they're free to do so.

crucamim wrote: »

Of course not. Catholic schools should receive payments from the government for providing a service - educating the children of Catholics - many of whom are taxpayers. And likewise Protestant schools.

Is it just the education service that you want run by the churches or is it all other government services. Do you want a catholic police force?

MrPudding

crucamim wrote: »

The phrase "frolic of his own" is an important principle in vicarious liability. i.e. The employer is liable for the misdeeds of an employee only where the misdeed was done "in the course of the employment". The employer is not responsible for anything done by the employee on a "frolic of his (the employee's) own".

The church probably did not use the “frolic of his own” defence as it would have been highly unlikely to succeed, it didn’t work for Hesley Hall, for example, Lister & Others v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UK HL 22.

“In the course of employment” is given a very wide reading. It is taken to include improper modes of carrying out a particular job, and, even covers acts which are prohibited by the employer, like the Northern Ireland petrol tanker driver that smoked whilst delivering petrol to a petrol station. Smoking was, quite obviously, prohibited, but it employers were still liable when he blew up a petrol station.

In the Hesley Hall case they tried to run a defence similar, I presume, to what you think the church should have run. That is, the workers were employed to look after the children and not rape them. Raping the children is so far removed from their actual duties that the employer should not be held responsible. It was held that abusing the children was something the employer could be held liable for.

So I am sorry, but I don’t think the “frolic of his own” defence would be available for your despicable organisation.

MrP

Amateurish

MrPudding wrote: »

The church probably did not use the “frolic of his own” defence as it would have been highly unlikely to succeed, it didn’t work for Hesley Hall, for example, Lister & Others v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UK HL 22.

“In the course of employment” is given a very wide reading. It is taken to include improper modes of carrying out a particular job, and, even covers acts which are prohibited by the employer, like the Northern Ireland petrol tanker driver that smoked whilst delivering petrol to a petrol station. Smoking was, quite obviously, prohibited, but it employers were still liable when he blew up a petrol station.

In the Hesley Hall case they tried to run a defence similar, I presume, to what you think the church should have run. That is, the workers were employed to look after the children and not rape them. Raping the children is so far removed from their actual duties that the employer should not be held responsible. It was held that abusing the children was something the employer could be held liable for.

So I am sorry, but I don’t think the “frolic of his own” defence would be available for your despicable organisation.

MrP

Is there a slight contradiction here? Which way did it go?

MrPudding

Amateurish wrote: »

Is there a slight contradiction here? Which way did it go?

No. The defence put forward was the act was too far removed but the court held it was not.

MrP

Dades

crucamim wrote: »

I am suspicious, very, very suspicious.

My thoughts exactly.

Amateurish

My two cents ..I'm pretty certain that all major religions encourage respect and tolerance of others, including atheism. I would argue that exposure to other religions/non religions helps develop an understanding of why one's own beliefs are unique. My children are being raised as catholic. They are aware that some believe god is a flower and that some believe the notion of god is a fairytale. They might have even sat beside someone in a burka at one stage. All survived. They see that part of catholicism means protecting the right to dissent. An obligation as a catholic parent is to raise children within the church, nowhere is exclusion mentioned, I'm pretty certain its actually an abhorrent notion. Equally any state I would consider living in would need to protect the right to religious expression. The difficulties only arise when hard-liners get involved. Be it Crucamim here who wants no mixing in case the children are somehow corrupted, (he is somehow missing a basic part of christianity which says it is a virtue to be mocked or suffer for your beliefs, also missing the part where preaching to non believers is important, missing so much of what is important merely to protect a few piles of brick). Equally as childish is some atheists outright objection to any form of RE. As with the catholic children, the bulk of what atheist's children believe as chldren is informed in the home. 99% of you were raised in (partly) religious homes and managed to reject religion.

Genghiz Cohen

Would still like to know if crucamim thinks the state is obliged to fund all types of school.

Turtwig

Amateurish wrote: »

My two cents ..I'm pretty certain that all major religions encourage respect and tolerance of others, including atheism. I would argue that exposure to other religions/non religions helps develop an understanding of why one's own beliefs are unique. My children are being raised as catholic. They are aware that some believe god is a flower and that some believe the notion of god is a fairytale. They might have even sat beside someone in a burka at one stage. All survived. They see that part of catholicism means protecting the right to dissent. An obligation as a catholic parent is to raise children within the church, nowhere is exclusion mentioned, I'm pretty certain its actually an abhorrent notion. Equally any state I would consider living in would need to protect the right to religious expression. The difficulties only arise when hard-liners get involved. Be it Crucamim here who wants no mixing in case the children are somehow corrupted, (he is somehow missing a basic part of christianity which says it is a virtue to be mocked or suffer for your beliefs, also missing the part where preaching to non believers is important, missing so much of what is important merely to protect a few piles of brick). Equally as childish is some atheists outright objection to any form of RE. As with the catholic children, the bulk of what atheist's children believe as chldren is informed in the home. 99% of you were raised in (partly) religious homes and managed to reject religion.

Just two small things:

Atheism doesn't really have ideals,morals,,teachings attached to it. One either believes in a God or doesn't. Philosophies of life emerge from other systems. (Atheism itself isn't a system.)

You mentioned Catholic Children, atheist children. I just wonder what exactly you meant by this. Would you agree that calling a child a libertarian child, or marxist child, or republican child, seems a little absurd?

Amateurish

Malty_T wrote: »

Just two small things:

Atheism doesn't really have ideals,morals,,teachings attached to it. One either believes in a God or doesn't. Philosophies of life emerge from other systems. (Atheism itself isn't a system.)

You mentioned Catholic Children, atheist children. I just wonder what exactly you meant by this. Would you agree that calling a child a libertarian child, or marxist child, or republican child, seems a little absurd?

I'm inclined to agree with all you say Malty. But can you clarify for my info please...
1 Atheism doesn't really have ideals,morals,,teachings attached to it.
My understanding of Atheism is basically there is no divine creator. It should not mean an outright objection to others teaching their children there is one. (Does that mean there is no morals? I didnt know that, what then guides the sense of what is right/wrong? If there is a developed thread point me at it please)
Catholic/atheist/marxist/republican children,... parents are generally inclined to teach their children things they themselves believe to be true. Maybe i should have said children of....
Same argument though I think.

Turtwig

Amateurish wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with all you say Malty. But can you clarify for my info please...
1 Atheism doesn't really have ideals,morals,,teachings attached to it.
My understanding of Atheism is basically there is no divine creator. It should not mean an outright objection to others teaching their children there is one. (Does that mean there is no morals? I didnt know that, what then guides the sense of what is right/wrong? If there is a developed thread point me at it please)
Catholic/atheist/marxist/republican children,... parents are generally inclined to teach their children things they themselves believe to be true. Maybe i should have said children of....
Same argument though I think.

The problem with atheism is that it's really a useless label. It includes, well it includes two things :
1) People who don't believe there is a God.
2) People who believe there is no God.

Technically both those are the same thing but for clarity I listed them as separate. If you take the second case then at least now you have learned something about that individual's beliefs. You know this person actually believes there is no God. So you could make the argument that this person has faith there is no God. There is also atheism that could derive itself from a religion e.g buddhism. These atheists definitely have faith in what they believe.
However, the first case isn't nearly as useful. All you have is that a person doesn't believe something. This is akin to being told that Malty doesn't partake in, or believe, the hobby of bug collecting. Malty is a non bug collector believer. This of course is useless all you have been told is something which I amn't. Atheism in this second sense is useless. Yet that doesn't change the fact someone who doesn't believe in God can be described by this term. You see the main problem is we don't have words for non bug collectors, non stamp collectors, non red heads, non cow enthusiasts etc. etc. You could have an atheist who is homophobic, another who is spiritual, another who is cannibalistic etc. Really it could encompass just about anything under the rising sun as long as they don't believe in some form of deity.

The only thing I believe to be true, is that any human is more likely to be wrong than they are to be right. There is probably only one reality, yet there are an infinite number of false ways to perceive reality. So, if I do have kids, I want them to grow up being rationally skeptical of what they are told by others and by me. I'd want them aim to be less wrong than others and me.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 :Test everything. hold onto the good.
Children are far more intelligent than most people give them credit for, instead of forcing something down their throat as an absolute let them decide for themselves.

The Mad Hatter

Amateurish wrote: »

(Does that mean there is no morals? I didnt know that, what then guides the sense of what is right/wrong? If there is a developed thread point me at it please)

That's been done to death. Here and here, for instance.

Basically, it boils down to two things:
1) If you're behaving morally only because of the threat of divine punishment, or the promise of divine reward, are you really behaving morally at all?
and,
2) Evidence seems to show that most religions have a pretty ropey record when it comes to morality anyway.

robindch

Amateurish wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that all major religions encourage respect and tolerance of others, including atheism.

As above, atheism isn't a religion. On the contrary, it's a rejection of religion. And while some religions -- Jainism, for example -- build in respect for others as a central part of their creed, most don't and instead elevate respect for the religion above respect for people (hence the thoughtcrime of blasphemy).

Amateurish wrote: »

As with the catholic children, the bulk of what atheist's children believe as chldren is informed in the home. 99% of you were raised in (partly) religious homes and managed to reject religion.

That's a bit like saying that 99% of people injured in road accidents manage to recover. It doesn't address the basic fact that pretending that religious stories are true is a fundamentally dishonest act.

Mistress 69

crucamim wrote: »

I think he is trying to steal schools from Catholics and compel defenceless Catholic children to share clasrooms with anti-Catholic children and to submit to the authority of anti-Catholic teachers.

Let me just say as this thread is very long that I have not read every post on it, in case my post has been dealt with before now.

I do not know if you have kids in school but I have one in primary. If you think any of the kids in the class are even aware of religous divisions, not to mind being anti-Catholic or anti-Prodtestant you should think again. I hope you are not advocating that they should be as that type of scenario has been left behind years ago. So far I have not come accross any anti-Catholic/Prodtestant/Atheist/ parents or teachers either.

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

The church wasn't interested in older kids?

For a short time (15 minutes) I believed that explanation. Unfortunately, your explanation raises a further question "If the Catholic Church was not interested in older children, why does it have any secondary schools in any country? So, while I thank you for your explanation, I just do not believe it.

I still suspect that the Department of Education has been discriminating against Catholics. I suspect that it has, for the past generation or more, been approving new Protestant secondary schools (for taxpayer funding)but not new Catholic secondary schools. Can any poster provide statistics which might confirm my suspicion?

crucamim

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I do not know if you have kids in school but I have one in primary. If you think any of the kids in the class are even aware of religous divisions, not to mind being anti-Catholic or anti-Prodtestant you should think again.

Why should I think again? I find it hard to believe that the children of many of those, who post anti-Catholic venom on this forum, have not been saturated with anti-Catholic bigotry.

Genghiz Cohen

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That's been done to death. Here and here, for instance.

Basically, it boils down to two things:
1) If you're behaving morally only because of the threat of divine punishment, or the promise of divine reward, are you really behaving morally at all?
and,
2) Evidence seems to show that most religions have a pretty ropey record when it comes to morality anyway.

Plus, be nice to your fellow human and stuff and you might get sexy time (Passing on your genes, if you're 'lucky'.) You certainly don't get laid by being a jerk to the ladies, at least your chances are reduced.

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

For a short time (15 minutes) I believed that explanation. Unfortunately, your explanation raises a further question "If the Catholic Church was not interested in older children, why does it have any secondary schools in any country? So, while I thank you for your explanation, I just do not believe it.

On explanation I heard is that they mainly got involved in educating the middle class but not the working class - they wanted to influence the people who would have influence.

Mistress 69

crucamim wrote: »

Why should I think again? I find it hard to believe that the children of many of those, who post anti-Catholic venom on this forum, have not been saturated with anti-Catholic bigotry.

You should think again, really when was the last time you heard of an Anti Catholic primary school child in biggot mode to one of his classmates?

crucamim

MrPudding wrote: »

So I am sorry, but I don’t think the “frolic of his own” defence would be available for your despicable organisation.

Is your describing my church "a despicable organisation" an incitement to hate? Is it within the rules of this forum?

crucamim

dvpower wrote: »

On explanation I heard is that they mainly got involved in educating the middle class but not the working class - they wanted to influence the people who would have influence.

Sounds like the Jesuits but not the Christain Brothers. If the Catholic Church was not interested in the working class, why does it own 92% of primary schools?

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

Is your describing my church "a despicable organisation" an incitement to hate?

We don't do "incitement to hate" in this forum. All that does -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is to incentivize religious outrage and we'd like to cut that out.

In short, posters can be as rude as they want about ideas, institutions and so forth, but posters are not allowed to insult other forum members.

The forum's rules + charter are here.

crucamim

Mistress 69 wrote: »

You should think again, really when was the last time you heard of an Anti Catholic primary school child in biggot mode to one of his classmates?

Why should I think again?

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

posters are not allowed to insult other forum members.

Perhaps you will take a look at some of the posts which have been directed at me. Thank you.

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

Sounds like the Jesuits but not the Christain Brothers. If the Catholic Church was not interested in the working class, why does it own 92% of primary schools?

Just an explanation I've heard told - I can't say for sure what was in the mind of the leaders of the RCC. Maybe they felt it was sufficient to give the working classes a basic dose, but the middle classes needed a booster.

But your discrimination theory would mean the the Dept. of Education was discriminating at secondary level, but not at primary - that doesn't sound right.